From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Abrahamsen Subject: Re: org-annotate/collaboration? Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:55:14 -0800 Message-ID: <87tw7xbkot.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <87wpd02b3s.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87mvds1tzu.fsf@mat.ucm.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54623) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdSL6-0006HN-QW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 20:55:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdSL4-0007u9-9O for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 20:55:32 -0500 Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=45173 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdSL4-0007tk-1e for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 20:55:30 -0500 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cdSKu-0006BA-KK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:55:20 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Uwe Brauer writes: >>>> "Eric" == Eric Abrahamsen writes: > > > Matt Price writes: > >> Does anyone use org-annotate actively? I'm wondering what your > >> workflow is, how you incorporate comments, etc. > > > I wrote it, and I don't use it that much. I do use it for quick > > notes-to-self when writing, but footnotes do the job just as well. > > >> I'm hoping to embark on a book project with a colleague. I would like > >> to use org-mode if I can, but I need to get a sense of the > >> collaboration workflow. When you work on projects together, do you use > >> annotations? Or git pull requests? If the latter, od you use any > >> filters, or any magit tricks, to approve or modify suggested changes > >> chunk by chunk? > > > It's a huge problem, and one that org-annotate isn't going to solve. I > > do a lot of manuscript editing, and passing files around, and have only > > barely gotten some people to accept my "weird" workflow, which is to > > send them a clean version of an edited file, and along with that an HTML > > file containing htmlized word-diff output, where the insertions and > > deletions are colorized. They make further edits on the clean copy, and > > I do another go-around. It's a huge pain. > > I did (and still do) the same, using latex and latexdiff, but found out > that a better solution is to use mercurial and bitbucket (I presume git > should be fine as well), since one of my collaborators agree to use it > as well. This is quite a relief to the former method relying on external > tools and email. > > - Usually instead of comments I use issuesin bitbucket. > - hg diff is not perfect but a good first approximation. I think collaborators who have even a tiny familiarity with technological tools make the whole process much, much easier. Unfortunately I'm working with technophobes, the sort of people who call the browser "the internet", so I have almost no wiggle room at all... E